State v. Colbath
540 A.2d 1212, 1988 N.H. LEXIS 13, 130 N.H. 316 (1988)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A defendant's constitutional rights to confront witnesses and present a defense may, under certain circumstances, require the admission of evidence otherwise excluded by a rape shield law, particularly when the probative value of a complainant's public, sexually suggestive behavior immediately preceding an alleged assault outweighs its prejudicial effect on the complainant.
Facts:
- On June 28, 1985, Richard Colbath and the female complainant became acquainted at the Smokey Lantern tavern in Farmington.
- At the tavern, the complainant directed sexually provocative attention toward several men, including Colbath, and engaged in physical contact with Colbath.
- Colbath and the complainant left the tavern together and went to Colbath’s trailer, where sexual intercourse occurred.
- While Colbath and the complainant were at the trailer, a young woman who lived with Colbath unexpectedly arrived home, discovered them, became enraged, and violently assaulted the complainant.
- After leaving the trailer, the complainant accused Colbath of rape.
Procedural Posture:
- Richard Colbath was arrested and charged with aggravated felonious sexual assault.
- Colbath was indicted on the charge.
- Colbath was brought to trial in Superior Court (Nadeau, J.) approximately one year after his arrest.
- During the trial, the State moved in limine to prohibit defense witnesses from testifying about the complainant’s behavior with men other than the defendant, which the court granted.
- The trial court instructed the jury that evidence of the complainant’s conduct with other individuals was not relevant to the issue of consent.
- The jury returned a verdict of guilty against Colbath.
- Colbath appealed his conviction to the New Hampshire Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a trial court violate a defendant’s constitutional right to present a defense by instructing a jury that evidence of a complainant’s openly sexually provocative behavior with other men in a public setting shortly before an alleged sexual assault is irrelevant to the issue of consent, even if such evidence is otherwise barred by the rape shield law?
Opinions:
Majority - Souter, J.
Yes, the trial court did violate the defendant's constitutional right to present a defense by instructing the jury that evidence of the complainant’s public, sexually provocative behavior with other men immediately preceding the alleged assault was irrelevant to the issue of consent. The court acknowledged that rape shield laws generally protect a complainant's privacy by barring evidence of prior consensual sexual activity with third parties. However, this protection is limited by a defendant's State and national constitutional rights to confront witnesses and present exculpatory evidence. Under this framework, a defendant must have an opportunity to demonstrate that the probative value of such evidence in the particular case outweighs its prejudicial effect on the prosecutrix, as established in State v. Howard. In this case, the public nature of the complainant's behavior significantly reduced its potential for damaging her sensibilities compared to private acts. Furthermore, evidence of openly sexually provocative conduct toward a group of men closely in time to the alleged assault was highly probative of the complainant's probable attitude of receptiveness to sexual advances from Colbath. Given that the fact of intercourse was undisputed, the evidence of assault was subject to an exculpatory explanation (the jealous cohabitant's attack), and there was a plausible motive for the complainant to make a false accusation (to explain her injuries and predicament), the issue of consent was central to the case. The trial court's instruction effectively excluded crucial evidence, thereby undermining Colbath's right to present a defense. The court also briefly addressed, and rejected, Colbath's claims regarding speedy trial and Brady violations, finding no sufficient reason for dismissal on those grounds.
Analysis:
This case is significant for clarifying the balance between a sexual assault complainant's privacy rights, as protected by rape shield laws, and a defendant's constitutional rights to a fair trial, including the right to present a defense and confront witnesses. It reinforces that rape shield laws are not absolute and can be overcome if the probative value of excluded evidence (particularly public, temporally proximate behavior) is crucial to the defense, such as establishing consent, and outweighs any minimal prejudice to the complainant. The ruling establishes an important precedent for future cases where consent is a central issue and evidence of the complainant's behavior immediately prior to the alleged assault could be highly relevant, emphasizing a fact-specific balancing test.
